Jan
Climate Change — so what?
If you have not yet noticed, some of the best information, both detailed explanations and links to wonderful resources, can be found in the comments on articles here on the site, and on our Open Thread. Some very smart people, including we suspect, some academics incognito, contribute very useful knowledge.
Today reader Ronald Kitching made a comment that includes a link to an easy-to-read presentation that as he says is, “an easily understood presentation by Hans Schreuder. Please note that Mr. Schreuder is a member of Mensa. He is a genuine scientist and his logical arguments are irrefutable. A reasonably well educated person of 16 to 17 years of age could understand this presentation.”
It’s titled “Climate Change – So What” and you can download the PDF here, download the Powerpoint presentation here or go directly to its home at nothingtodowithco2.com.
Possibly related posts:
Is that really the best you can come up with? Mr. Schreuder is so totally misinformed about climate science that he even denies the reality of the greenhouse effect itself. “There is no evidence that shows…that CO2 has any effect on temperature or climate.” He calls water vapor “a superb anti-greenhouse gas.”
In the real world it is a firmly established scientific fact, beyond dispute, that there is an approx. 60 degree F greenhouse warming due to naturally occurring greenhouse gasses like water vapor, CO2, methane, etc., without which the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The “logic” employed by Mr. Schroeder in his attempt to evade this reality is comical at best.
Even his figures lie. He clearly implies that CO2 cannot have any effect on temperatures since it is such a small part of the atmosphere, but it is precisely those minor constituents of the atmosphere which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gasses. He also misstates the human contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere as being 3% of the total. In fact, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 40% since pre-industrial times, so we are responsible for about 30% of the present concentration.
Recently a couple of Hungarian physicists have pointed out (perhaps among others) that an actual greenhouse is a closed system. Our clouds are considerably more permeable than the glass roof (and sides) of an actual greenhouse. Not only that, they only cover 60 to 65 percent of the earth’s surface at any time. In fact, these physicists claim that a name other than “greenhouse gas” is needed for the water vapor, CO2, methane, etc. in the atmosphere.
Also, keep in mind that CO2 was at one (possible more) time in the past almost ten times as concentrated in the atmosphere and that was during one ice age. (As usual, none of this is to argue that we shouldn’t do what we can to reduce our “carbon footprint”, but that shouldn’t include reverting to cave-man style living conditions tomorrow.)
It doesn’t take “a couple of Hungarian physicists” to teach us how greenhouses work, nor should you assume that a couple of contrarians can overturn over 100 years of atmospheric physics just like that. We are also quite well aware that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher at times in the past than at present. But then the climate has also been much less habitable at times in the past than it is now. After all, there have been periods of mass extinctions in the past. Do you think there might be some correlation?
If you’re not willing to look at the source — both those Hungarian and German physicists have claimed, it’s pointless for me, or you, to waste time on the subject. Also, Henrik Svensmark and his Danish group have an interesting take on climate change. Why not try further educating yourself?
Incidently, I think Monckton, in his recent rebuttal to a Scientific American article may have rendered the (I think now outdated) feedback argument as, in any event, not significant.
Where did I say that I wouldn’t look at them? I’ve read all the “anti-environmental” books that you’ve ever heard of, so I’ll get around to it.
CO2 currently occupies less than 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere. There indeed is NO evidence that CO2 has ever contributed anything to earth’s temperature, but assuming it does, it’s likely to be an amount that is consistent with the level of CO2. It’s clearly not rational to impose crushing economic policies on everyone, particularly given that India and China’s contributions of CO2 will very soon be overwhelming, even if the US contributes none!
Temperature at practically any point on the surface of the earth varies, on a daily basis, by 20 degrees or more, and across seasons by as much as 80 degrees. There’s a lot of variation in the earth’s temperature, but it’s managed to remain quite stable.
If you believe that (say) a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will activate some kind of feedback mechanism which results in a significant impact on the earth’s temperature, I suggest that you quickly patent that process, because you’ve evidently just discovered a perpetual motion machine – a way to generate more energy (in the form of heat) from the sun than what the sun directly provides. Congratulations ! (That would definitely be an improvement on solar!)
Whether CO2 is, or is not, a greenhouse gas is based on laboratory measurements of the transparency of CO2 at various wavelengths, which clearly show that it is. The fact that CO2 is less than 4/100% of the atmosphere does not mean that it has no effect on climate, and it does not require that “(say) a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will activate some kind of feedback mechanism” to cause it to have an effect. The feedback mechanisms, positive and negative, operate all the time.
Do you think that greenhouses are “perpetual motion machines”, or that insulating your house would create one? If you deposit energy in your house at a constant rate, it will reach a higher equilibrium temperature if you insulate it than if you don’t. The insulation doesn’t create any energy, it simply increases the thermal resistance of the walls and ceiling, which requires a higher temperature difference to keep the outward heat flow at the same rate that it is being deposited.
Dick Morris
BSEE, UW, 1975, specializing in control systems theory, with 35 years experience in aerospace working on inertial guidance systems, flight simulation, logic systems and test equipment design, commercial aircraft avionics hardware and software design, and liaison engineering.
You undoubtedly have a point about my level of physics — it was an undergraduate minor (B.S. – 1960) and not ever put into practice. However, you may want to look directly at some real physicists commentary. (As it turns out, both Hungarian and German physicists are saying pretty much the same thing. ) While I do have a concern as to whether I’ve accurately quoted what they said, it’s pretty clear that somebody is wrong, and I doubt that it’s these guys, so look for yourself. (apologies will be graciously accepted)
Miklos Zagoni (Hungarian scientist, and initially in favor of Kyoto).
http://cartmanist.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/hungarian-climatology-cardinal-the-math-was-wrong-global-warming-is-impossible/
Then there’s the earlier reference I already provided you on the German physicists.
(names are Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner)
The 60 degrees F is basically from (we’ll assume it’s credible) quote that, with no atmosphere, the earth’s temperature would be 60 degrees F warmer.
So? The atmosphere is basically composed of just one item — water vapor. Not many of us, probably even the EPA, is concerned about the level of water vapor. Cloud coverage of the earth varies between 60 and 65%. At the higher percentage the tendency is towards cooling, at the lower percentage, towards warming. (There’s lots of other “immediate” influences, which is why our weathermen have a problem predicting weather a few days ahead.) According to Svensmark and other Danish scientists, the cloud cover varies depending on the relative level of solar activity (on the one hand) and cosmic ray influence on the other. The earth’s orbit provides another type of influence – the four seasons. There’s some longer term cycles that also contribute, our elliptical orbit, (40,000 year cycle?) and there’s impact on the climate depending on the position of our solar system in the milky way. (That last one involves a 250 million year cycle.)
No, if it had no atmosphere the Earth would be about 60 degrees F COLDER.
Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it is still not certain (as far as I know) whether clouds are a net positive or negative feedback.
On the 60 degrees, you may be right, I don’t even recall where I read that commentary, but in any event that hypothetical situation doesn’t seem to be relevant to what is going on in the real world.
Google the name Henrik Svensmark. There’s a collection of 10 minute videos (all most all in English, so don’t shut down during the 1st minute or two.) They are even on this website somewhere.
Svensmark appears to have established that the only cloud participation wrt temperature is that the low hanging clouds successfully reflect some of the sun’s energy. The strong correlations he demonstrates indicate that more (low) clouds bring on cooler (not warmer) temperatures. (That’s pretty obvious to everyone from personal experience.) Less clouds leads to warmer temperatures. He also seems to have found the related mechanism that does that.
On “feedback” concerns, there are a couple of Hungarian physicists , (But I have more recently seen what I suspect is the same reference, but to German physicists instead) who make it clear that the greenhouse process is very different than what happens in our atmosphere. In fact on the right half of my screen (even as I type) is a reference to them “German Physicists Trash Global Warming ‘Theory’ “. Just find and click on that. It’s in the column under “Recent Comments”.
I’ve seen the article by the two Germans. As snow jobs go, it’s a blizzard.
I tend to disagree about the effect of clouds on temperatures. As a “desert rat” from way back who has spent many nights outdoors in the desert, I can personally testify that a cloud cover leads to warmer temperatures, water vapor being such an effective greenhouse gas. Whether reflection from cloud tops is more important than greenhouse warming, on the whole, is still an open question with most climatologists, as far as I know.
What “hypothetical” situation are you referring to? The “greenhouse effect” is certainly not hypothetical. Are you referring to the allegation that a greenhouse is completely different from the Earth’s atmosphere? If so, I’d like to see your explanation of the difference.
Gee that’s a tough one Tricky Dickie….ummm as far as I am aware a real greenhouse has glass walls and ceiling, the earth isn’t inside a glass bubble….so I guess that’s the difference eh? Or, do you require an over length pile of crap scientific explanation? If so, pester someone else.
Oh….and don’t forget to give me some more suggested reading links in lieu of reality.
Morris:
I’ve gone back and here’s a quick reference. Zagoni has put out his challenge 2 years ago, for anyone to disprove his theory. (Whether that has happened betwixt the website last update I don’t know, but here’s at least one reference to his stuff, in case you’ve missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4
After checking out (very briefly) the Germans claim at one website, I see that it’s (as of whenever the website was last updated) not yet a peer review document.
The Hungarian scientists’ claim seems to be in a similar state, but evidently stronger since (apparently) no-one has yet (according to the claims of the author and as of the date of that claim) disproved his theory which he advanced at least two years earlier.
Lord Monckton did some calculations (in conjunction with an Australian physicist, as I recall) on feedback, using the IPCC assumptions wherever possible to eliminate dickering, and came up with a result that, in the worst case was not an issue. But there were some assumptions that were debatable (as I recall) so I suspect that they’re all treading on marshy ground.
There is apparently evidence that CO2 was about 10X higher during one ice age, which would seem to indicate, along with it being just a trace gas, that there’s no reason to panic.
Had I done a bit more checking on those two claims I’d have probably quoted them only as now, with caveats.
On the other hand, Svensmarks’ theory appears to stand up, not only currently, but over quite a long historical period. It’s fascinating and beautiful because of its simplicity. Oceanographers can apparently provide sea temperatures going back a VERY LONG time, and these correlate very nicely with the solar systems’ position in the milky way (which astronomers can compute over long durations. They apparently know when it’s in a spiral arm). When the earth is in a spiral arm, there’s more cosmic ray influence, hence cooler. (We’re not supposedly in a “small” one.) But of course one revolution (to the extent that is meaningful given that the galaxy isn’t standing still) covers about 250 million years. Svensmark seems to have established that average temperatures over the long run vary much more than anything mankind has experienced, with earth temperatures varying from the average by 5 to 10 degrees. (I don’t recall whether Svensmark was talking in C or F.)
JOHN:
As an aerospace engineer, I’m quite well aware that the Earth’s atmosphere is not confined by a giant glass bubble (and also that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, in case you were wondering). The Earth’s atmosphere is confined, not by glass, but by gravity. I was just curious to see if Denis (or you) could provide me with an explanation of the differences based on physics (not on an absurd strawman). I will read the references provided by Denis as soon as I get the time.
Are you saying that all your scientific explanations are “crap”. I won’t pester you if you will stop pestering me.
I would guess that most (if not all) people on this website are definitely not “anti-environment”. We’ve obviously been busily polluting most everything in sight, and we should do better. However, if you take the time to review what the IPCC and its affiliates, namely the CRUs at Hadley and Anglia (and others, perhaps even NASA) have been pushing — it’s clear that it’s political and not science. The surface temperature data has not a shred of credibility. Not only that, these folks even changed history (making the medieval warming period disappear, etc.) As I recall, googling Tim Ball will get you into that area. He was a consultant to the CRUs for some time before he gave up in disgust.
There is definitely an attitude by ‘skeptics’, that it’s too soon to throw the industrial nations into total chaos. (Monckton preaches this approach.) Whether or not you think there’s anthropogenic global warming, we need to take some time to investigate before jumping into the “global governance” concept, not to mention radically messing up our economy, perhaps even our democracy. (You do understand that politicians just hate to not take advantage of a “crisis”, whether real or perceived?) Right now the skeptics (and there are apparently more scientists in that category than AGW believers now) are all known as “climate change deniers” (a misleading title, but standard P/R by the AGW believers, who, in turn, are “alarmists”. ) Politics has obviously hijacked the science.
If you listen to those half a dozen videos covering Svensmark’s theory, you’ll hear no politics – regardless of where you stand, it’s like a movie with a good ending, an enjoyable experience. He does (very briefly) mention that the IPCC, after his presentation in about 1996, were very “negative” and asserted that his theory was “irresponsible”. (No scientific refutation, just irresponsible.)
Hi Tricky Dickie,
If questioning your seemingly endless perfect knowledge of all things is pestering you, then feel free to call me a pest. This isn’t the “Dick Morris Aerospace Engineer is All Knowing and You Better Cowtow to Me” website.
You can quit trying to turn things around with your use (or mis-use) of cutesy little things like asking if all my explanations are crap. I mean that’s pretty kindergarten for an “aerospace engineer” if you ask me. It prompts me to contemplate if you have an “Aerospace Degree” in paper airplanes.
Regarding my explanation, it was merely a simple and straightforward analogy to explain what you asked. I didn’t think I needed to write a scientific dissertation on the difference between a greenhouse and our atmosphere when it’s very simply explained.
Regarding your gravity comment. Here’s something you can read on.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/28/earths-atmosphere-is-leaking-into-space/
Amazingly I guess not the whole atmosphere is held in by gravity according to this article.
Denis:
I generally agree, with the caveat that “anti-environment” means “opposed to the environmental movement” (said opposition being generally based on strawman arguments). I certainly agree that more climatology investigation is required, and that we don’t want to throw the industrial world into chaos. However, “chaos” may be a good description of the industrial world if we don’t complete the transition to renewable energy sources in good time, so it’s not as if “business-as-usual” can be considered a viable option.
It’s also very unfortunate that politics has become so pervasive, but surely you don’t mean to say that it’s all one sided and that the anti-AGW side is entirely untainted by politics. Look at the organizations that are most prominent on the anti-AGW side and you will find exclusively right-wing/libertarian organizations (who tend to be bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry and other big business groups). I tend to be conservative myself, but I don’t let ideology trump science.
Here is a link to some organizations that support the GW consensus: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf. These organizations represent actual scientists (in contrast to the 30,000 “scientists” who have signed the famous on-line poll, only a tiny fraction of whom can claim to be climatologists, or even scientists at all).
JOHN:
“This isn’t the “Dick Morris Aerospace Engineer is All Knowing and You Better Cowtow to Me” website.”
No, it’s apparently the “JOHN is All Knowing and You Better Cowtow to Me” website. You seem to have a serious problem with anyone disagreeing with you. You asked me if I required “an over length pile of crap scientific explanation” and I asked if you didn’t have anything better. If you do have a “simple” scientific answer to my question, feel free to provide it.
John doesn’t even pretend to be all knowing. John does not like AGW believers. You obviously lean in that direction.
Dick: I’m not sure in what order you’re reading all these responses, further complicated by the fact that you’re also responding to ‘John’.
I should not have quoted those two physicists without a caveat. But, I would certainly not admit that either is “crappy”, because I’m in no position to know that; in fact, it’s apparent that particular piece of science is obviously not quite a settled piece of work.
Altho’ the Hungarian, Zagoni, has some pretty good peer review – when you consider that he’s challenged anybody out there for the past two years to disprove his theory. That’s probably a guarantee of getting the quickest feedback. If you’re up to it, and he is ‘crappy’ perhaps you can point out his flaw(s) ? If the commentary on this guy is correct, that he was in favor of the Kyoto protocol until he made his ‘discovery’, that’s at least another point in his favor.
The first video below is Svensmark and the group of scientists he worked with, including an astronomer, a climatologist, and an oceanographer, among others. It’s broken down into 6 parts, each a few minutes in duration. Except for the first minute or two of the first video the entire thing is in English. The subtitles are in English during those couple of minutes, so don’t hang up. It’s pretty clear that someone helped them whip up this “Youtube” at some point to get some exposure. Anything that threatened the AGW concept was (and even now remains) difficult to get past most editors. Now there’s plenty of scientists who make reference, if not to Svensmark, to their believe in the influence of solar activity, cosmic rays, etc., wrt climate change.
Actually there’s also a similar video on this site, as I recall that is only 5 part, presumably the same content but (I guess) some introductory soft stuff edited out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related
The second website (below) is a video of a CERN Colloquium where various data related to solar and cosmic ray activity and its relationship to climate is reviewed before an audience of physicists. This video goes into more technical detail, but covers many of the same correlations addressed years earlier by Svensmark.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
Now, if you want to hear about ‘crappy’ scientists at work, google some of the people who can discuss it first hand such as Tim Ball, or Anthony Watkins (WhatsUpWithThat) You don’t have to have an advanced degree to understand what’s going on there. Between moving temperature recording stations which were at cool spots to warmer spots, or just dropping recording stations at cooler spots, and machinations with the data, even with solid historical records, it’s pretty obvious what has been going on. The IPCC & its two CRUs (Anglia and Hadley) haven’t even tried to justify what they’ve done – they just attack the skeptics. Their actions is what got this mess started years ago. ClmateGate finally put the finishing touches to the smoking gun.
None of this is to say we shouldn’t try to figure out how to decrease our contribution of CO2. But there’s no crisis – we have time.
Dick: If you are objective, and only interested in the science, then you’ll have to figure out how to use the internet to get information because the major news media is not spending much time on this issue – for whatever reason. The websites I mention have lots of technical information, none of which I’ve seen refuted (except via political chants).
A good start is Svensmark and CERN. If Svensmark was being paid by ‘big oil’ or whoever, he certainly kept it well hidden. The guy was operating on a shoestring budget. After that, give a little thought to how you’d personally handle the project if it was your responsibility to determine the earth’s average temperature, and maintain that recording in a consistent fashion over time. Then check out how it is currently being performed. That’s not totally possible, because the ‘operators’ refuse to provide much information (which in itself is a very bad sign), but then what is known is more than sufficient to drop the entire project.
When you say it can’t be ‘business as usual”, that could mean anything – such as we have to implement cap & trade this year. The rate of increase of CO2 is not very significant. We don’t have to stampede out and do anything immediately. We cpi;d undertake investigations and plans and not actually implement anything for a decade.
The atmosphere acts just like a Heat Sink on a Microprocessor.
Lets say the Microprocessor operates with (and has to dissipate) 10 watts of power (Sun) and it’s surface area is 0.01 m^2.
The Electromagnetic Field radiated by the Microprocessor (Earth) is 10 Watts/0.01 m^2 = 1000 w/m^2.
The surface temp of the Microprocessor can be calculated by the Stefan – Boltzmann Law.
Power/Area = Boltzmann’s Constant X Temp^4
Temp^4 = 1000 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 1.76 X 10^10
Temp = 364 K or 91 deg C
We want the Microprocessor to drop in temp by placing a Heat Sink on it that will only be heated to 25 deg C or 298 K
A Heat Sink (atmosphere) is initially at room temperature (20 deg C) and is placed on the Microprocessor (Earth).
The Heat Sink (atmosphere) has to have a larger surface area.
Power/Area = 5.67 X 10^-8 X 298^4 = 447 w/m^2
Area = 10 Watts/447 = 0.022 m^2
The Microprocessor and the Heat Sink will now operate at a temperature of 25 deg C.
Temp^4 = 447 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 7.88 X 10^9
Temp = 298 K or 25 deg C
———————–
The atmosphere increases the radiating surface area of the Earth, so it has to cool the Earth.
A Heat Sink’s efficiency will increase if it’s Emissivity is increased.
Adding more CO2 and/or Water Vapour to the atmosphere will increase it’s Emissivity causing the Earth to cool even more.
Dick you say, “the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 40% since pre-industrial times, so we are responsible for about 30% of the present concentration.”
Firstly, can you explain how you come up with that ‘30%’ number when no one has yet been able to delineate between natural and man-made co2 signals? Its guesswork. Second, any current increase in atmospheric co2 has more to do with paleoclimatic impacts rather than any humans have made. Clearly you have not read any of the following peer-reviewed science: Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982, 1989); who show that the paleoclimatic record proves the change in CO2 concentration actually considerably lags the change in air temperature from anywhere between 800 years.
While (Genthon et al., 1987). Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years.”
Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” Indermuhle et al. (2000) performed a statistical test on the data that suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years.
Caillon et al. (2003) examined Vostok ice cores and they also concluded “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.” Caillon et al., “confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.”
All in all, unless you have substantial peer-reviewed studies that refute the above then your CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.
John:
On your Feb 21 reply to Dick on CO2: Although I didn’t go back to whatever Dick had said, in any event I have a bone to pick with part of your statement about causes of the increasing CO2. From all the accounts I’ve read CO2 has been no higher than 280 ppmv going back even several ice ages. It is only within the last couple of centuries that CO2 has exceeded 280, (now about 380) and that increase now amounts to about 35%. Unless you’re questioning the accuracy of earlier measurements of CO2 there does appear to be basis for claiming most of that increase is anthropogenic. (As you point out, that doesn’t mean that increasing CO2 – so far – has anything to do with warming, because (1) there’s no evidence that CO2 has been a driver of temperature, either historically or during the past couple of decades. And (2), two centuries ago we bounced off the low point of the little ice age, which lasted some 500 years, so a couple hundred years of follow-up warming is not at all unexpected (it’s happened quite a few times over the past 10 thousand years) and this bounce is certainly within the range of normal variation. Also, looking back to the MWP (and earlier) we have evidently experienced temperatures as high, or higher.) CO2 is a concern, but there doesn’t appear to be anything close to a consensus as to whether it will (at least in the short term) be helpful, or in the long-term turn into a crisis.
Denis, I’ve got serious doubts over all the CO2 numbers. I’ve been finding evidence that undermines such guesstimates as much as we’ve been finding proof to undermine the fiddled ground temp record.
As an American Thinker article last December cautions us:
“Problems in the collection of atmospheric CO2 data parallel other absurdities in the global warming fraud.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
I was going to write up my own investigations into this but I decided that to controvert the CO2 numbers only muddies the waters. Best to argue from the point that CO2 levels are growing inexorably higher, yet temps are flat since 1995. We then apply the principles of Occam’s Razor to conclude the two are not related and thus the AGW theory is refuted. QED.
But you might be interested in this: there is still no proper record of the carbon dioxide concentrations over industrial regions, or over forests and other cultivated regions. It was not until 2009 that the first project to accurately measure such areas of emitters of CO2 came with NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), a satellite was launched in Feb 2009. It strangely exploded after take off – I looked into the NASA investigation. They couldn’t determine the cause. Foul play can’t be ruled out.
http://content.zdnet.com/2347-9595_22-272170-272312.html?seq=1&tag=content;col1
John:
There are graphs portraying the strong correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases (way before the IPCC shot down that CO2 sniffing satellite) Those graphs showed CO2 fluctuating but (as I recall) always topping out at 280 ppmv, (and, as everybody knows by now the relationship was delayed by 800 years and it was warming ->CO2 and not CO2 -> warming. I don’t know the origination of those graphs or where the CO2 numbers came from.
Denis, ironically I wrote something about this already on my own site:
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/11219.html
“…temps are flat since 1995.”
Please look at the data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Nobody is saying that CO2 is the only driver of the Earth’s climate, so there is no reason to believe that there would be a simple, linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Denis:
If temperatures sometimes rose before CO2 concentration, it’s because CO2 is not the only influence on climate. Ice ages appear to be related to the Milankovitch Cycle, which concerns cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbital elements. Temperatures can start to rise for reasons other than CO2 concentration, which then causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans and reinforce the increasing temperature trend. Where positive feedback loops are involved, we can’t say that one thing causes another – they both cause each other.
The Sun, of course, is the principal driver of climate, and the Sun’s output can vary considerably over billions of years. Right now we are in a solar minimum of unusual depth and duration, which most likely is the cause of the recent plateau in global temperatures, which is now ending.
The CO2 numbers – for the last 800,000 years – come from ice core date. Here is an interesting tool which I found last week: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html#c1
Smells like Steve is back.
LOL! I think you’ve succinctly hit the nail on the proverbial head, JOHN!
Dear Dick,
What the hell are you blathering on about? If you were following the actual existing state of the science you insist on parroting you would be ashamed to bring it up. You’re missing the entire point of this site and what is motivating us to fight. It is “settled” that lies have been told, science subverted, political hardball played, and a scam perpetrated. Before we can conduct a sensible debate with fanatics such as yourself a cleaning of the Augean stables has to take place. We have undertaken that Herculean task with great vigor and will let you know when it’s safe for you to re-engage. Until then I suggest you focus on the fascinating work you may or may not be getting paid to perform.
Tom: I see your point. “ClimateGate” , as the name makes clear, is not the website for the kind of communication Dick and I have been having.
I will definitely constrain myself in the future. (It was helpful to be prodded to recheck the claims of those German physicists and the Hungarian scientist. I’ll be more careful about that in the future.)
All the AGW QUACK so called “scientists” fail to treat Electromagnetic Fields as Vector Fields.
Electromagnetic Fields have been used as Vector Fields for over a Hundred years by Electrical Engineers and Physicists practicing in this area.
Example:
ALL Electromagnetic Fields are VECTOR quantities (that have a magnitude and direction) that must use Vector Mathematics when summing two or more EM fields.
This means that a Larger EM field (390 w/m^2 as per Trenberth) propagating from the warmer Earth toward the atmosphere, when summed as Vector with an opposing Smaller EM field (324 w/m^2 as per Trenberth) propagating from the colder atmosphere toward the Earth, the Resulting Vector EM field will have a Magnitude of 390 – 324 = 66 w/m^2 and have a Direction of propagation Towards The Atmosphere.
There will be ZERO EM field propagation Towards the Earth.
Thus, the atmosphere does not transfer ANY Heat energy to the Earth and no heating of the Earth can happen.
This, of course, totally complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and The Radiative Heat Transfer Equation derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
If the Un-Professional AGW “Climate Scientists” properly treated EM fields as Vector Fields, the whole “Greenhouse Effect” fantasy would go “POOF”.
The Vector aspects of the Electromagnetic Field and the total neglect of the Un-Professional AGW “Climate Scientists” to properly apply it, is thoughly discussed in the the peer reviewed paper by the two German Physicists called “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”.
Here is a completely impartial paper done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University that deals with Solar Ovens being used to COOL water when the Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens are pointed away from the Sun during the Day and Night.
Parabolic Mirrors will focus ALL types of Electromagnetic Radiation (including IR BACK RADIATION) at a focal point to produce heating.
According to the AGW’er FRAUDS Back Radiation is available DAY AND NIGHT to Heat the Earth.
——–
Here is the experiment done by the Physics Dept. at Brigham Young Unversity that PROVES that Back-Radiation CANNOT heat the Earth.
Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives
“The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.
These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.
For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.
Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.
The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.
So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere.”
http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
This link shows that heating of the Earth’s surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere.
In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!
All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!
It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!
“If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F.”
And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics….heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects.
Further, if the Back Radiation (which the AGW’ers say is available Day and Night) actually could reach and heat the Earth, Solar Ovens would produce heating DAY and Night!
Our energy problems would be over!
——————-
The Greenhouse Effect is a fantasy.
Interesting, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying that the colder atmosphere is heating the warmer earth. That myth is the fundamental error behind all the so-called “proofs” that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics. All matter above absolute zero radiates energy in all directions. That does not mean that there is a net energy flow from atmosphere to earth, and nobody is making any such claim.
If you put an extra blanket on your bed, you will feel warmer, but that does not mean that the blanket is generating additional heat, or that the energy flow has reversed. The net energy flow is always outward. The additional resistance to heat flow simply means that there must be a higher temperature differential to transfer the same amount of heat in a given time. Take Phys101 and get back to us.
“The additional resistance to heat flow simply means that there must be a higher temperature differential to transfer the same amount of heat in a given time.”
That’s correct, but this blanket can change only slightly the time since sunset after what precisely the same temp is reached, no warming at all is possible. It does not get really warmer under the blanket, too. Retaining the heat is not the same thing as generating additional energy. And besides, CO2 is different from water as it can’t store latent heat, absorbed photon is radiated away immediately.
I think the mistake of GH theorists is the fact that they are calculating static equilibrium, but there’s no such thing.
Read this, it’s more than physiscs 101:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/nothing/pdf/EPAInput.pdf
Dick, the Earth Energy Budget Diagram by Trenberth (also used by the IPCC and countless other AGW papers) has Heat Energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to Heat a much warmer Earth surface.
In all cases they describe the colder atmosphere heating a much warmer Earth surface.
Here is Trenberth’s Earth Energy Budget Diagram (it has the title Global Heat Flows) that is also used by the IPCC:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Do you see that there is 324 w/m^2 Back Radiation flowing to and being absorbed by the much warmer Earth surface?
Here are some quotes from the link above:
“When energy is absorbed, it raises the temperature of the substances that absorb it..”
“Now let’s look at the outgoing IR radiation. Note that 390 W/m2 of IR energy starts upward from the surface. But wait! We only had 168 W/m2 coming in! Where did all of that extra energy come from? This is where the atmospheric nearly-complete opacity to IR comes into play. Whenever any IR radiation starts upward, nearly 90% of it is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before it can escape the “black box” and return to space. So the atmosphere is warmed by the 67 W/m2 of incoming sunlight plus most of the IR trying to escape from the surface to space. All of this generates IR radiation emissions from the atmosphere. Some of this IR from the atmosphere does escape to space (the 165 W/m2 arrow flowing upward from the atmosphere plus the 30 W/m2 flowing upward from clouds). Most, however heads back down towards the surface. That’s what the 324 W/m2 of “back radiation” is all about. This downward flow is what really pumps up the surface temperature to the point that it can radiate 390 W/m2 of energy upward. The greenhouse gases act as a blanket covering Earth’s surface; a lot of energy flows back and forth between the insulating blanket and the “body” of the planet beneath; but relatively little escapes from this efficient insulating cover.”
Do you know how much power they claim is being absorbed by the warmer Earth surface from the colder atmosphere?
Back Radiation is supposed to be 324 w/m^2 and when multiplied by the surface area of the Earth (4*Pi*R^2 = 4*Pi*(6.37 X 10^14 meters)^2 = 5.10 X 10^14 m^2) gives 1.65 X 10^17 WATTS!
Contrast that to the 168 w/m^2 that the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE, THE SUN, provides.
Watts produced by the Sun = 168 w/m^2 X 5.10 X 10^14 m^2 = 8.56 X 10^16 WATTS!
The difference is 7.94 X 10^16 WATTS !!…that is the “extra” power CREATED by the COLDER ATMOSPHERE that they says HEATS A WARMER EARTH!!
——————-
Here is another “Greenhouse Effect” link:
The Greenhouse Effect
“Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules
begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.”
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
————————–
All the links have HEAT ENERGY FROM THE COLDER ATMOSHERE BEING ABSORBED BY THE EARTH’S SURFACE.
Energy is being CREATED by a perpetual motion machine as well.
IR energy radiated upward from the warmed earth is absorbrd by various gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere, making them warmer. This energy is then re-radiated randomly in all directions, some of it upward, and some downward. Downward radiated energy that reaches the surface will, of course, be absorbed, thus reducing the NET upward radiation. The NET radiation flow is still upward, from warmer to colder, as required by the laws of physics.
Over the long term, the energy radiated outward from the Earth must balance the energy received by the Earth from the Sun. If the NET upward radiation from the surface is reduced, then the unbalanced radiation from the Sun will cause the Earth to warm, which will increase the amount of thermal radiation from the surface. The surface temperature will increase until a new equilibrium is established and the outward radiation once again equals the radiation received from the Sun.
None of the links you cite claim that there is a NET flow of energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. Nor have I ever said so. In my previous post I said “That does not mean that there is a net energy flow from atmosphere to earth, and nobody is making any such claim”.
Dick, regarding your “Blanket” theory, here is a link that explains what actually happens with “Blankets”:
Radiation emitted by a human body
“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Gee, looks like heat flowed from the WARMER Body to HEAT the blanket up!
So putting a colder insulation (20 deg C) on a warm Body (33 deg C) REDUCES the Body surface temp to 28 deg C!!
Just like a Heat Sink will COOL a Microprocessor, the atmosphere will COOL the Earth!!
(See my post about this to YOU above on Feb 7 at 2:36 am)
And, just like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says…
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not
flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
——————-
Summary:
- ALL the “Greenhouse Effect” explainations involve Heat Flow from Cold to Warm Bodies and CREATE ENERGY by a Perpetual Motion Machine.
- The Atmosphere “MUST” cool the Earth because it INCREASES it’s RADAIATING SURFACE AREA, just like a Heat Sink works.
- A Heat Sink is more efficient if it’s EMISSIVITY is increased, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere “MUST” cool the Earth even more.
- The “Climate Change-so what?” presentation also says atmospheric CO2 must COOL the Earth.
- Blankets cannot Heat a body, they can only keep a body from COOLING faster. They will ALWAYS result in COOLING.
- Back Radiation cannot even reach the Earth as is easily proved by properly treating EM fields as VECTOR fields.
- Back Radiation cannot Heat a warmer Earth as PROVEN by ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.
- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is clearly Violated by the “Greenhouse Effect”.
- The Law of Conservation of Energy is clearly Violated by the “Greenhouse Effect”.
- The fundamental Principle of EM Radiation being Vector Fields is clearly Violated by the “Greenhouse Effect”.
- Two German physicists, Gerlich/Tscheuschner, have written a paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”, was published last year in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics, that confirms much of what I have posted….and more.
The abstract states:
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.”
AND…
“According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
—————————-
The “Greenhouse Effect” is pure fiction.
See previous posts. G&T are the victims of the same sort of misconception. They attempt to disprove something that nobody is saying, and prove things that are not in dispute. Either way, it’s known as a “strawman” argument.
Kirk and Gord: Here are some other interesting sites regarding CO2.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/nothing/pdf/EPAInput.pdf
Dick, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not a NET LAW that says that some heat flow can occur from cold to hot as long as more heat flows from hot to cold!
The 2nd Law says:
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is “NOT POSSIBLE” for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not
flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
It is “NOT POSSIBLE” for heat to flow from a colder body…”
If ANY heat energy could flow from Cold to Hot objects, it would Violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Example:
The hot tungsten filament of a light bulb radiates light to a reflective wall in the room.
If any of the reflected light were absorbed by the hotter filament, it would increase in energy, temperature and produce more light.
The increase in light would then be reflected back to the hotter filament further increasing it’s energy, temperature and produce even more light.
The cycle would continue until the filament’s energy and temperature reached infinity!
This is exactly the same fictional process that the “Greenhouse Effect” claims!
In fact, all that is required is that the filament be above absolute zero and the “heat flowing from cold to hot” will produce an infinite filament temperature.
—–
Here is a cartoon example of the great “science wisdumb” used in AGW “Physics”.
Free Energy Oven
Based on the latest Climate Modeling Technology developed at NASA
“Interior has a mirror finish which reflects black body radiated heat back to the chicken, increasing its temperature.
Warmer chicken will then re-radiate more infrared energy to the reflecting surfaces with additional heating occurring in a rapid cascade effect.
Chicken must be above absolute zero when initially started.
(Warning: observe temperature rise carefully and remove when internal temperature reaches 185 degrees).
No power required.
UN IPCC approved.
Chicken not included.”
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html
So you think that it’s not possible for an air molecule to emit a photon in the direction of a warmer object and have that photon absorbed? What exactly is going to stop it? Take Phys001 and get back to us.
Good question – nothing can stop it but absorption can happen only when target is colder. this is high-school quantum mechanics.
Colder than what? A photon has no temperature, only a wavelength. Objects of a wide variety of temperatures can emit a photon of a given wavelength, including objects that are either warmer or colder than the target. Does a photon of a given wavelength get absorbed if it was emitted by an object that was warmer than the target, while a photon of the same wavelength gets rejected if it was emitted by an object that was colder than the target?
Obviously, the only thing that matters is the wavelength. If a photon of a given quantum energy encounters an atom with an energy gap between electron energy levels that is the same as the quantum energy, the photon will be absorbed and the electron will be raised to the higher energy level. Molecular vibrational and rotational quantum states can also be used. Photons in the IR range generally cause transitions between vibrational quantum states.
A photon will penetrate the target to whatever depth is required before it encounters an atom or molecule with an energy gap of the proper magnitude, at which point it is absorbed. If the material has no energy gaps of the proper magnitude, then the material will be transparent to radiation of that wavelength. Objects in view of each other are continually exchanging photons of a range of energy levels. The energy balance between incoming and outgoing photons largely determines the temperature of an object. This is college quantum mechanics.
Exactly, and for absorption of CO2-s 14.77u photons, the target must be generally colder than tropopause or there will be no real absorption, continuous exchange does not raise the temperature.
Heavy going all this science,but as a simple model ,does the “atmosphere behave as a “newtonian” cooling device.
Heat is transmitted to
“atmosphere” from the Earth,the atmosphere circulates the “heated gases ” ,heated gas cools as it rises,radiating excess heat to space. A natural cooling system which is a heat engine.
Obviously there is a lot of gobbly gook within the “science”
SO,WHY THE LIES and MASSAGED DATA ?
What is there to hide,a conspiracy?
“Allan Kiik February 9, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Exactly, and for absorption of CO2-s 14.77u photons, the target must be generally colder than tropopause or there will be no real absorption, continuous exchange does not raise the temperature.”
When downward radiated IR photons reach the surface of the Earth, they WILL be absorbed by SOMETHING. It’s only a question of how deeply they have to penetrate. But, as I have said, the NET energy flow will still be upward.
That’s correct, but this does not raise the the temp of the target. In Feynman Lectures of Physics there was a really good example of this effect with mirror’s – when you see your reflection on the mirror, you see only “new” photons as the “original” ones are all absorbed and new ones are emitted.
ADE and Gord: I asked Dick Morris, on another thread here at ClimateGate to provide some evidence that CO2 has anything to do with global warming. There may be other interesting things to discuss, and (if you have the right background) argue about, but if there is not any evidence, then there is no casual link to AGW from man’s contribution to CO2. Morris could not provide anything relevant. (He did claim that Dr Spencer’s data shows global warming. .. ? … While that may be evidence of something else, it is not evidence of AGW).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
Incidently, if Morris declares the two german physicists, the hungarian scientist, the “CO2 lover”, etc., as “nuts”, then it will soon (if not already) degenerate to the equivalent position of merely asking “Are you gonna believe me or your own eyes?”
What more do you want? What would you consider to be “evidence”?
It looks as if the “consensus” (sorry about that) is that there’s no evidence that CO2 has ever had anything to do with global warming, hence no current evidence of man being responsible for global warming. That pretty much closes the case.
All of the other stuff is eyewash, except perhaps for the earlier comment in the thread. The IPCC – CRU guys, (and some others) if credible, would have had nothing to hide, would have made absolutely sure that no data was destroyed, would have proudly presented their process, programs and data to skeptics and would have enjoyed such a great opportunity to display their competence. Instead all of their actions were (to put it mildly) suspicious. You refuse to recognize even that, so why should anyone bother getting bogged down in other technical details with you?
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
It’s your mind that’s closed.
I’m interested in seeing evidence of AGW, and, since the only known link betwixt man and temperature increase is CO2, it boils down to requiring evidence that CO2, a trace gas, representing only 4/100 of 1% by volume of the atmosphere, will have a significant impact on the earth’s temperature at anywhere near it’s current level.
Given that CO2 is currently increasing at a very low and linear rate, it seems we have plenty of time to figure out whether or not it is a driver of temperature. Right now, to me, AGW looks like an invented crisis. It is certainly obvious that politicians everywhere are salivating at the thought of all the potential revenue from “cap & trade” tax, not to mention additional control of its citizens. The CRU folks agenda may be more like your own. True believers ready to do anything to help humanity. (But that’s not in their job description. Their mission is to present the facts, and nothing but….)
You’re telling me I have a “closed mind” because I don’t share your belief ? Why not: “Are you gonna believe me or your own lying eyes”?
You’re so sure of your position that you don’t believe some others whose bonafides exceed yours. (That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right, but it should give you pause because you don’t have any evidence.) I’m NOT claiming that AGW is not possible, only claiming it certainly doesn’t look that way, and that is further exaggerated by the bogus CRU operations. Unless/until there is evidence, the alternative – high taxes and perhaps even a blown economy, is not an acceptable approach.
Also, global warming (even if true) is NOT evidence of AGW. Neither are hurricanes, glacier and ice melting, sea levels, etc.
Dick, Photons do not move by themselves, ALL propagating EM fields, including Heat Radiation, CARRY photon energy.
————–
Photon
“In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic “unit” of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force CARRIER for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
————–
Heat Radiation
Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
————-
Properties of electromagnetic waves
“An electromagnetic wave, although it CARRIES no mass, does CARRY energy.”
“A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is CARRIED by the wave from one place to another.”
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html
—————
If the magnitude of an EM field is zero, it will not propagate and no Photon energy can be moved.
EM fields are Vector fields so when two opposing fields are added the resultant EM field will always propogate in the direction of the larger field.
Hotter objects produce larger EM fields than Cooler objects, so Heat Energy ALWAYS flows from Hot to Cold.
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is “NOT POSSIBLE” for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not
flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW OF SCIENCE, something AGW’ers refuse to acknowledge.
Nobody is denying the validity of the laws of Thermodynamics. As Allan correctly concluded, the issue is Quantum Mechanics, not Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory. At the atomic level, processes involving photons, electrons, etc., are governed by the laws of Quantum Mechanics. When an IR photon radiated from an atmospheric molecule reaches the surface of the Earth, it will be absorbed whether the emitter is warmer than the receiver or not. It has no alternative. At the macroscopic level, the NET energy flow is upward, from warmer to colder, as required by the laws of Thermodynamics. That is all we are saying.
Dick, another way to explain the validity of the 2nd Law is through the Electromagnetic Force.
Electromagnetic force
“The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces.”
“In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules.
“The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons.”
“The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force
———-
Hot objects are not “spatially aware” any more than a block of wood “knows” that it is supposed to move in the direction of greatest force when two opposing forces are applied
to the block of wood!
- Heat Radiation is accomplished by propagating EM fields.
- EM fields are Force fields, in fact the Electromagnetic Force is one of the four fundamental forces.
- EM fields carry “Photon Energy”.
- Photons have zero Mass.
Is it so surprising that opposing EM fields and corresponding Forces will only move the zero mass Photon energy in the direction of the larger force?
The “block of wood” analogy should be apparent except that, unlike a “block of wood”, a Photon has zero mass.
Hot objects produce a larger EM field (and force) than Cold objects so heat energy can only flow from Hot to Cold!….The direction of the larger force!
This is really what 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is fundamentally saying!
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not
flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
When you AGW’ers say that Heat can flow from Cold to Hot it’s like saying the “block of wood” will move in the direction of the weaker force!
Are you really trying to tell us that photons can only move in the direction of the strongest magnetic field? MRI machines create very powerful magnetic fields, but in all of the MRIs that I’ve had, I don’t recall ever seeing total darkness at one end of the machine. I don’t recall any sort of shadowing effects at all. Electromagnetic fields affect the motion of charged particles, a category which conspicuously excludes photons.
Dick, everytime I confront AGW’ers with their denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, they ALWAYS bring up Quantum Mechanics.
You would think that with their inability to understand or accept the very basic 2nd Law, sucessfully used in all branches of Engineering and Physics for over a hundred years, would preclude their erronous jump into the field of Quantum Mechanics.
The fact that Quantum Mechanics is only applicable to energy and matter, almost entirely, at the atomic scale, never seems to cross their minds.
Classical Physics deals with large objects we deal with in our daily lives while Quantum Mechanics deals with very, very small or atomic scale objects and the two branches of Physics are not inter-changeable.
Ex. The Physics of Newton is used to describe virtually all Mechanical Systems, not Quantum Mechanics.
The 2nd Law is also an example of this.
Second law of thermodynamics
Microscopic systems
“Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures. For example, in a system of two molecules, there is a non-trivial probability that the slower-moving (“cold”) molecule transfers energy to the faster-moving (“hot”) molecule. Such tiny systems are outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, but they can be investigated in quantum thermodynamics by using statistical mechanics.
For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, probabilities of observing a decrease in entropy approach zero.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
- Very “tiny systems” of less than a “few picograms of Mass”, fall “outside the domain of classical thermodynamics”.
- ALL Matter larger than a “few picograms of Mass” fall under the domain of the CLASSICAL 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
All the AGW Papers and Literature DOES NOT USE QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS, FOR A VERY GOOD REASON!
IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EXTREMELY LARGE MASS EARTH-ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM!
I think this reason is clear – quantum mechanics does not support their case. QM is far more fundamental than any other physical theory and it’s applicability is restricted only with complexity of calculations. There is no controversy between thermodynamics and QM.
The system is not letting me reply to the previous posts.
The greenhouse effect is all about the emission and absorption of photons. Those are quantum events, and are, therefore, governed by the laws of Quantum Mechanics. The laws of Thermodynamics and of Electromagnetism (Maxwell’s Equations) are macroscopic theories, and are, therefore, not applicable at the quantum level. Nobody is ignoring, or denying the validity of, the laws of Thermodynamics. They simply need to be applied where they are applicable.
Heat flows in the atmosphere, and elsewhere, are simply the algebraic sum of a vast number of individual quantum events. It is the results of such a summation that will obey the classical laws of Thermodynamics: The NET energy flow will be from warmer to colder. Nobody is saying that there is a NET energy flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics
What you are saying, in effect, is that a photon emitted by a gas molecule in the atmosphere CANNOT be absorbed by the warmer Earth. A photon is characterized only by wavelength – it carries no temperature information. Each atom or molecule has a wide range of frequencies at which it can emit or absorb radiation, and if an atom or molecule has an energy gap which matches the quantum energy of the photon, the photon will be absorbed.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
If the literature of climatology seldom delves into the level of Quantum Mechanics, it is for the same reason that papers on astrodynamics do not go into great detail on the Law of Gravity: They are “givens”. Climatologists are thoroughly familiar with the principles of radiation emission and absorption.
“That part of the radiant energy that strikes the Earth’s surface and is not reflected must be absorbed, since no significant transmission through the solid Earth occurs.” Dr. Patrick J. Tyson, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Duke University, retired http://www.climates.com/SPECIAL%20TOPICS/GW/heatingtheearth.pdf
http://phasing.org/2010/01/31/water-and-the-earth%E2%80%99s-heat-budgets/
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4TNWH49-5&_user=615015&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1208042533&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000032059&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=615015&md5=482e03001cac040aaa8880beffae1c19
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/9120/greenhouse-effect.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Greenhouse_effect
http://jstor.org/pss/4259806
This one is important here – “and is not reflected”.
When there is no available low-energy quantum state transition for 14.8u CO2 quantum, then it’s absorbed and immediately re-emitted, without change in target temperature, or with other word – reflected. Mirrors do this all the time without getting hotter.
I guess there is one problem more with “warmists” QM description of CO2-s radiation in the atmosphere – they are telling us that “about half of the absorbed energy is transmitted back downwards,” but if I remember correctly (it’s 25 years from my university days) there was a rule called Bose statistics, which says that bosons (and photons are bosons) are more frequently emitted in the quantum state similar with other bosons already there… It means, that if there is strong upward flux of similar photons, new ones will be fired in the same quantum state, including direction. I don’t know, how to calculate the magnitude of this effect in the real atmosphere, but obviously there must be some difference.
You quantum physicists might want to take a look at Jo’s blog on CO2
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
Excellent!
Dick, as I have already posted:
—–
- Very “tiny systems” of less than a “few picograms of Mass”, fall “outside the domain of classical thermodynamics”.
- ALL Matter larger than a “few picograms of Mass” fall under the domain of the CLASSICAL 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
All the AGW Papers and Literature DOES NOT USE QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS, FOR A VERY GOOD REASON!
IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EXTREMELY LARGE MASS EARTH-ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM!
(see my post on Feb 10)
—————
The 2nd Law is NOT a NET LAW that says that some heat flow can occur from cold to hot as long as more heat flows from hot to cold!
The 2nd Law says:
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is “NOT POSSIBLE” for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not
flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
It is “NOT POSSIBLE” for heat to flow from a colder body…”
If ANY heat energy could flow from Cold to Hot objects, it would Violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
(see my post on Feb
——————
Photons do not move by themselves, ALL propagating EM fields, including Heat Radiation, CARRY photon energy.
EM fields are Vector fields so when two opposing fields are added the resultant EM field will always propogate in the direction of the larger field.
Hotter objects produce larger EM fields than Cooler objects, so Heat Energy ALWAYS flows from Hot to Cold.
(see my post on Feb 9)
——————
The link you gave for the Pdf document “HEATING THE EARTH” has some interesting points and some Glaring Errors.
http://www.climates.com/SPECIAL%20TOPICS/GW/heatingtheearth.pdf
- First, you should notice that it does not deal with Quantum Mechanics.
- All the discussion regarding wavelengths, absorbtion, radiative loss, reflection, scattering etc. is used ALL the time by Electrical Engineers.
- Pay particular attention to the blackbody Sun temperature of 5798 K and more accurate Sun temp of 6101 K. (paragraph 3)
- Also note the use of 342 w/m^2 as the mean Solar Constant (paragraph 17)
(Actually the Solar Constant is 4 X 342 = 1368 w/m^2, it is divided by 4 when the spherical Earth is represented as a disk to get an average top of atmosphere flux of 342 w/m^2)
(You should also note that this 342 w/m^2 is also used by Trenberth)
The equation relating Sun temp to mean Solar Constant is:
SC = BC*TS^4 * Rs^2/D^2 w/m^2
where:
BC is Boltzmann’s Constant = 5.67 X 10^-8
Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96 X 10^8 meters
D is distance from the Sun to the Earth = 1.496 X 10^11 meters
TS is the Sun temp in Kelvin
For a Sun temp of 5778 K (which is what Trenberth uses) the SC = 1368 w/m^2 and the top of atmosphere solar flux = 342 w/m^2
For a Black Body Sun temp of 5798 K, the SC = 1387 w/m^2 and the top of atmosphere solar flux = 347 w/m^2
Using the more accurate Sun temp of 6101 K, the SC = 1700 w/m^2 and the top of atmosphere solar flux = 425 w/m^2
You can see that Trenberth has “fudged” the Sun’s temperature and has a “fudged” top of atmosphere solar flux that is 425 – 342 = 83 w/m^2 TOO LOW!
For a Black Body Earth without an atmosphere (albedo = 0) the Earth temperature can be calculated directly from the Stefan-Boltzman Law.
TEarth = (top of atmosphere solar flux / BC)^0.25
This gives:
- For Trenberth’s “fudged” 342 w/m^2, TEarth = 278.68 K or +5.68 deg C
- For the more accurate 425 w/m^2, TEarth = 294.24 K or +21.24 deg C !!!
The average Earth temperature, with an atmosphere, is +15 deg C.
There is the PROOF AGAIN, the ADDITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE COOLED THE EARTH FROM +21.24 deg C DOWN TO +15 deg C !!!
“Allan Kiik February 17, 2010 at 10:52 am
This one is important here – “and is not reflected”.
When there is no available low-energy quantum state transition for 14.8u CO2 quantum, then it’s absorbed and immediately re-emitted, without change in target temperature, or with other word – reflected. Mirrors do this all the time without getting hotter.”
Rock, soil, water, and vegetation are not very mirror-like. The reflection coefficient for water, for example, is about 2%. I’d be surprised if the others are much higher.
Denis:
“In sum, the way radiation is absorbed only matters if you want to calculate the exact degree of warming — adding carbon dioxide will make the greenhouse effect stronger regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere. But in fact, the Earth’s atmosphere is not even close to being in a state of saturation.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
“GT09 is full of such misplaced argumentation, in which Gerlich and Tscheuschner misconstrue an argument or a figure and then present long arguments to show something is wrong that has not been claimed to be true.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/end-of-road-thanks-to-everyone-who.html
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/
Gord:
You’re repeating yourself. The laws of thermodynamics apply to complete processes, not just portions of them. You might just as well try to explain the workings of a sterling engine by considering only the part where the working fluid gains energy.
On the other hand, you have yet to attempt an explanation of why an IR photon emitted by an atmospheric gas molecule CANNOT be absorbed at the Earth’s surface as you claim. The laws of Quantum Mechanics most certainly do have macroscopic consequences, and you cannot explain the laws of Thermodynamics by denying the underlying principles.
You believe anything on Real Climate? That’s a hoot.
Silly me, thinking that actual climatologists might know more about climatology than Rush Limbaugh, or CEI.
Dick, I’m sure I read somewhere that albedo plays a bigger role than a mere 2% when applied to Earth’s polar, glacial and sea surfaces. I’m not a mathematician but I am aware that what this requires is some ability to calculate the bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF), a four-dimensional function that defines how light is reflected at an opaque surface. Perhaps a mathematician could investigate this for us by applying Helmholtz’ reciprocity calculations on conserving energy?
No one’s talking about Rush, but I guess it makes you feel important to diss him, so be my guest, I could care less about Rush. I do wonder why you come over here with all this minutia? There is a much larger picture out there. A gigantic pile of falsehoods, lies, manipulation and corrpution out there that you either choose to ignore or your so into your minutia you can’t see the forest for the trees. You can come up with whatever you like about photons, but the bottom line is simple….why did we, in the past, have periods of higher temperatures than now with lower Co2 and why do all you people ignore it? It’s like an elephant is standing on your foot and you are more worried about what a picnic ant is doing on your hand?
Regarding Real Climate…Climatologist? More like Propagandists.
Indeed there is a gigantic pile of “lies, manipulation and corruption” out there, which you choose to ignore because they reinforce your political/economic/religious worldview. I wish that I also could say that I could care less about Rush Limbaugh, but the man is an idiot – yet millions of people believe that he walks on water. That, frankly, bothers me. And isn’t it interesting how so many of the leading AGW deniers are lawyers, economists, politicians, and big business front groups like CEI with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
If you think the bottom line is “simple”, it’s because you don’t understand the problem. The atmosphere is an exceedingly complex, chaotic system, and to expect a simple linear relationship between CO2 and temperature would be ridiculous, so don’t blame us for not providing one.
Dick…look up psychosis, it fits you to a “T”.
I’m also wondering what type of fixation you have with Rush. You keep bringing him up.
Yeah, we know. “Everybody’s crazy – except me!”
I have “brought up” Rush Limbaugh once – and I do not use the word “idiot” lightly. I try to avoid such language, but I do allow a few exceptions, namely for people who believe that the Apollo Moon landings were a “hoax”, for people who believe that the Earth is flat, and for Rush Limbaugh.
Do you by any chance remember the “star as big as the Moon” fiasco? Rush saw a report about a supernova that occurred about 700,000 years ago in our part of the galaxy. The report said that the supernova became, briefly, as bright as the full moon and may have destroyed 10-15% of the Earth’s ozone. Ever alert for ways of beating the environmental movement over the head Rush pounced. But, somehow, in Rush’s febrile brain “bright” became “big”, and Rush trumpeted that “If a star as big as the Moon can explode and only destroy 10-15% of the Earth’s ozone, then what can puny man do?” It was the single stupidest thing I have ever seen or heard in the mainstream media.
I listened to Limbaugh nearly every day for four years while I was working second shift, and I never heard him say anything about any environmental issue without making a fool of himself. If I were you, I would be mortified to have somebody like that on my side.
Dick,
You’re talking about Rush again. I think you are fixated on him and want to be his lover. Why else would you listen to him all the time? I sure don’t!
Dick, so now you’re tainting lawyers? I hope you’re not having a swipe at me because if you are you’re uttering total guff. I am totally self-funded. I wish some corporation paid me just like the big energy corporations are funding the likes of Pachauri, Ben Santer, CRU, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. That would help level up the playing field. Scum like Phil Jones personally embezzled £3m off UK payers to perpetrate his junk science that he then destroyed criminally before us amateur sleuths could get lawful access to it. The more people like you harp on this meme the more compelled I feel to write an article and expose such pathetic slurs.
Notice that Dick loves arguing in detail about the possible relationship between quantum physics and whether or not they may relate to warming issues but studiously avoids looking into all the stuff that anybody with a pulse can understand. (He speaks very generally about that, but no details because that’s “below him”, and besides he knows it can’t be true!). The issues about whether or not CO2 may have a significant feedback impact is being hotly debated everywhere. But in the meantime, the issue about the questionable behaviour (that’s the nicest way to put it) of the CRU boys is a nobrainer. Open and shut case.
Dick, I have already produced a Physics link that says that Quantum Mechanics (and specifically Quantum Thermodynamics) ONLY applies to a Mass of less than a few PICOGRAMS.
The classical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to ALL processes, just like the Law of Conservation of Energy does!
I should not have to repeat this over and over again, especially since this has been in constant practice by Science Professionals for over a hundred years.
Yet you “Deny” this simple FACT, just like you “Deny” that the 2nd Law IS NOT a NET LAW that says that some heat flow can occur from cold to hot as long as more heat flows from hot to cold!
It really does not matter to me that you have an irrational “belief” system that prevents you from accepting proven scientific facts.
Your inability to accept that the 2nd Law is a LAW OF SCIENCE, Electomagnetic Field Physics and actual measurements, is consistent with a CULT mentality that I see in virtually all AGW’ers that DENY established Science.
There simply is no rational behaviour in Cult members, just like the Heaven’s Gate Cult, the Jonestown Cult or any number of Cults throughout history.
Enough said.
The system is not permitting me to reply to this post.
I don’t know what’s wrong, but it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Now they’re being deleted.
Sorry, nothing is being deleted.
It may have been the server as within the last half hour the server was down for maintenance for a short period. It could have hit you.
Beg to differ. I put in a post and saw it in the thread. Then I put in another one. Not only did the new one not appear, but the earlier one had vanished. I just tried two more times to post a reply this morning without success.
Anyone else here having this problem?
So, Dick, some make it through and some don’t? Can you think of anything similar with the ones that don’t appear?
I think I see the problem. I just approved one of your posts I found marked as spam. It looks like there were so many links in the comment that the spam filter thought is was spam (spam often has tons of links). If you see this happen again, please send a note through the contact form and we’ll look for it.
“Dick, I have already produced a Physics link that says that Quantum Mechanics (and specifically Quantum Thermodynamics) ONLY applies to a Mass of less than a few PICOGRAMS:
“Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures. For example, in a system of two molecules, there is a non-trivial probability that the slower-moving (“cold”) molecule transfers energy to the faster-moving (“hot”) molecule. Such tiny systems are not part of classical thermodynamics, but they can be investigated by quantum thermodynamics by using statistical mechanics. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, probabilities of observing a decrease in entropy approach zero.[4]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
This is a statement that classical Thermodynamics does not necessarily apply at microscopic scales. It is NOT a statement that Quantum Mechanics has no macroscopic effects.
“Explores the foundations of thermodynamics from a quantum theory point of view, by developing a unified theory of mechanics and thermodynamics and a general quantum equation of motion for reversible and irreversible processes from which the second law emerges as a general dynamical theorem.”
Quantum Thermodynamics, 2.997 Advanced topics in Mechanical Engineering MIT
http://www.quantumthermodynamics.org/
“[Statistical Mechanics] provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy, allowing the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics#Fundamental_postulate
“In statistical mechanics, entropy is essentially a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of “disorder” (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder).[13][14][15][4][16][10][9] This definition describes the entropy as a measure of the number of possible microscopic configurations of the individual atoms and molecules of the system (microstates) which would give rise to the observed macroscopic state (macrostate) of the system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
“Whereas the non-thermodynamic properties pertain to a single or to only a few ultimate particles, the characteristics of matter which are called thermodynamic properties are those which result from the collective behavior of a very large number of its ultimate particles. Instead of only one or a few particles, this number is typically on the order of Avogadro’s number. In a manner analogous to the way in which molecular properties can be calculated from the fundamental microstate properties of an individual or small group of particles, the various thermodynamic properties likewise depend upon the vastly greater number of all the microstate properties of the very large group.” http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/1.OnlineMaterials/BasicPrinciplesByTWLeland.pdf
“If we go beyond classical thermodynamics, and start to investigate the statistical machinery which underpins it, then we get all of the results of classical thermodynamics, plus a large number of other results which enable the macroscopic parameters of the system to be calculated from a knowledge of its microscopic constituents.”…”we employed classical mechanics to deal with the translational degrees of freedom of the constituent particles, and quantum mechanics to deal with the non-translational degrees of freedom.”
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_12/158000/158073/3/print/369.pdf
“Yet you “Deny” this simple FACT, just like you “Deny” that the 2nd Law IS NOT a NET LAW that says that some heat flow can occur from cold to hot as long as more heat flows from hot to cold!”
Read on:
“Two black bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. … The heat flow between two gray bodies can now be determined by the …”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2819861/Thermodynamics-Hand-Book-Volume-2
“The net radiation emitted per unit surface by a body at temperature T1, enclosed by some black body at temperature T2 equals to the emission of the body enclosed minus the radiation that is absorbed by the body enclosed. Note that both the emission coefficient and the absorption coefficient refer to the surface of the enclosed body: …”
http://www.nat.vu.nl/envphysexp/REAL%20Experiments/Heat%20radiation/Radiation_Theory.html#anchor175491
“Radiation heat transfer is concerned with the exchange of thermal radiation energy between two or more bodies… Radiation heat transfer must account for both incoming and outgoing thermal radiation.”
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/overview_rad.cfm
“The emitted radiation strikes a second surface, where it is reflected, absorbed, or transmitted (Figure 1.5). The portion that contributes to the heating of the surface is the absorbed radiation. The percentage of the incident radiation that is absorbed is called the absorptivity, α. The amount of heat absorbed by the surface is given by:….where I is the incident radiation. The incident radiation is determined by the amount of radiation emitted by the object and how much of the emitted radiation actually strikes the surface. The latter is given by the shape factor, F, which is the percentage of the emitted radiation reaching the surface. The net amount of radiation absorbed by the surface is: …”
http://www.tufts.edu/as/tampl/en43/lecture_notes/ch1.html
“Everything around us takes in energy from radiation, and gives it off in the form of radiation. When everything is at the same temperature, the amount of energy received is equal to the amount given off. Because there is no net change in energy, no temperature changes occur. When things are at different temperatures, however, the hotter objects give off more energy in the form of radiation than they take in; the reverse is true for the colder objects….The net energy change is simply the difference between the radiated energy and the absorbed energy.”
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heattransfer.html
“All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.” http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/transfer.html
“The net exchange of radiative heat transfer between a body surface and its surroundings is given by…”
http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/che/motazali/files/Thermodynamics/Chpt03.doc
“An object will also absorb energy by radiation from its surroundings. If the surrounding temperature is T0, then the net energy radiated will be given by…”
http://bama.ua.edu/~jharrell/PH105-F08/class_notes/CH20.doc
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~nava102/presentations/lesson03.ppt#265,4,THE_GENERAL_ENERGY_EQUATION
http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/phy101/ptest/p101chap11pretest.pdf
http://home.southernct.edu/~tremblayr1/hewitt/phy111chapters10thpdf/Section2/ch18.%20Thermodynamics%20.pdf
http://ocw.kfupm.edu.sa/user/DADME315/ME305notes.doc
http://www.physics.pdx.edu/~bseipel/Temperature%20and%20Heat.pdf
I did a google search for “Thermodynamics net “heat flow”" and received 600 unique hits (32,700 total). These links were found in the first hundred hits. You’ve got your work cut out for you convincing MIT, Boston University, Caltech, The University of Illinois, The University of Alabama, Tufts University, et. al. the error of their ways. Let us know when you’re finished.
Testing. (If this gets thru, it’s clear that the “deniers” must be censoring Dick’s opinion because it’s embarassing to them.
Short posts are getting through. It’s long ones like this Feb. 23, 11:40 one that I have had trouble with. I have seen the “Spam” message in the past, though not this morning. The first time this morning I got zilch, the second time I got a “Duplicate Post” message, even though nothing had actually gotten posted.
Thank you Editor sir.